From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Jaeger Subject: Re: Why __memrchr vs. memrchr ? Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 07:03:40 +0100 Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sources.redhat.com Message-ID: References: <20040203023721.A20354@zzz.ward.six> <20040202221723.GD11571@basalt.office.altlinux.org> <20040203053002.A21975@zzz.ward.six> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , In-Reply-To: <20040203053002.A21975@zzz.ward.six> (Denis Zaitsev's message of "Tue, 3 Feb 2004 05:30:02 +0500") List-Id: To: libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com Cc: linux-gcc@vger.kernel.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Denis Zaitsev writes: > On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 01:17:23AM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote: >> Hi, >>=20 >> On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 02:37:21AM +0500, Denis Zaitsev wrote: >> > Why such a scheme is used in GLIBC: >> >=20 >> > declare + define __memrchr, and than >> >=20 >> > # ifdef __USE_GNU >> > # define memrchr(s, c, n) __memrchr ((s), (c), (n)) >> > # endif >> >=20 >> > ? memrchr is not the GNU extension, is it? >>=20 >> According to memchr(3), >> "The memrchr() function is a GNU extension, available since glibc 2.1.91= ". > > Oh, I'm sorry. This fact is omited from the texinfo GLIBC > documentation... It's in the Library Summary: `void * memrchr (const void *BLOCK, int C, size_t SIZE)' `string.h' (GNU): *Note Search Functions::. Andreas =2D-=20 Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj SuSE Linux AG, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=FCrnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint =3D 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126 --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBAHzm8OJpWPMJyoSYRAkklAJ4+CXEYF80TEKHuSP8uRD6cH+w88wCcCgxD u8XEYDmq8cWEJUqENSUrq4E= =WJwl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--